or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

That's correct. I didn't. And, that was intentional. It wasn't my aim to enter into an unregulated, free-wheeling conversation with you or anyone else. I asked what I wanted to know and got sufficient information to satisfy my curiosity. I had no need to go further in that vein or into a wider query.
Enforcing net neutrality and education efforts are not moderation activities. As to the rest: you have entered slippery slope territory and the slope is very slick.
Define what you mean by "moderation" specially with regard to the internet please.
Not going to bother to correct the misquoted inclusion of material I did not write.If I read you correctly: it is against the law to obey the law when your intent is to circumvent the ethical intent of the law even when you follow the law.That is screwed up.
In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to show that following the tax law to the letter is unethical. But, that is really not totally material to the discussion.Apple is a multinational company. They have investors in multiple jurisdictions. Their fiduciary responsibility is defined in the larger sense by the locations within which they are incorporated, the locations wherein they are headquartered for primary taxing purposes, and to a smaller extent by the locations...
Thanks. You understood perfectly.
When ethics and law are at cross purposes, one must follow the law. That is good corporate governance. It is a fiduciary responsibility that must be met. It is ethical behavior. And, most importantly, it supports the rule of law. If you don't like that ethics and the law are at odds, change the law to suit your ethical purpose. If you can't do that, accept that others' views of what is ethical are at odds with yours. If that is still unsettling, either change your ethical...
Why? They already have most of the profit.It's possible the Apple sales numbers were released to late for inclusion.No Apple fan calls themselves an "Apple fan boy" unless they aren't and then, if they preferred something else, they wouldn't be. I doubt you were once an Apple fan at all.
A statistician, true to their craft, will attempt to better define a category labelled as "Others" when the category is equal to 30% of the total being analyzed. This is particularly true when the smallest identified category is 3% of the total. Other should never, ever be your 2nd largest data category. After all, there may be a really good manufacturer that Gartner has hidden in the Other category. In another note, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung were looking at that...
Tsk. Tsk. Imagine that. Google not thinking they have to play by the same rules everyone else has to play by.
New Posts  All Forums: